netdev - Re: [net-next 1/9] net/mlx5e: Switch to using napi_build

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <151e4778-f4b2-d5ea-eb8e-cbb8d7b26f9b@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Feb 2023 18:59:29 +0100
From:   Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/9] net/mlx5e: Switch to using napi_build_skb()

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:53:24 -0800

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 18:26:19 +0100 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> Before: 26.5 Gbits/sec
>>> After:  30.1 Gbits/sec (+13.6%)  
>>
>> +14%, gosh! Happy to see more and more vendors switching to it, someone
>> told me back then we have so fast RAM nowadays that it won't make any
>> sense to directly recycle kmem-cached objects. Maybe it's fast, but
>> seems like not *so* fast :D
> 
> Interestingly I had a similar patch in my tree when testing the skb_ext
> cache and enabling slow_gro kills this gain.
> 
> IOW without adding an skb_ext using napi_build_skb() gives me ~12%
> boost. If I start adding skb_ext (with the cache and perfect reuse) 
> I'm back to the baseline (26.5Gbps in this case).
> 
> But without using napi_build_skb() adding skb_ext (with the cache)
> doesn't change anything, skb_ext or not, I'll get 26.5Gbps.
> 
> Very finicky. Not sure why this happens. Perhaps napi_build_skb() 
> let's us fit under some CPU resource constraint and additional
> functionality knocks us back over the line?

Both skb and skb ext use kmem cache, maybe calling kmem cache related
functions like alloc/free touches some global objects (or even locks)
we'd like to avoid accessing on hotpath? I'm not deep into the kmem
cache, so might be saying something perfectly stupid here :D

Nevertheless, it's always fun to see how performance does some weird and
counter-intuitive moves sometimes (not speaking of why
CONFIG_DEBUG_FORCE_FUNCTION_ALIGN_64B exists).

Thanks,
Olek